GA BILLS FAN Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 Putting aside the argument that Byrd may want to play for a team with better winning prospects than the Bills, there has been zero contention that he wants a premium to stay in Buffalo. That logic would work if the Bills offered him the same deal as Goldson got, and Byrd's camp turned that down. But all we can surmise is that Bills offered less than Goldosn's deal, and that's where the impasse ended. As for playing for a winner, each top echelon player has enough self confidence to think that he is the missing piece in a SuperBowl run. But in reality, they know their NFL shelf life is limited and they get only one shot at a big contract. How else would you explain Goldson walking away from a SB team to a top 5 draft pick team? That will be Byrd's decision too - take more money from a team that won't be in SB contention right away or take less to win a championship. The way Parker has positioned the negotiations, I'm guessing they're going to maximize Byrd's value. I don't think he signs for less than what Goldson got last year. You could be right and with most players your logic is sound. I think in this particular case you will see Byrd sign with a contending team for a contract that we'll all scratch our heads and say "did the Bills offer him less than that ?". Again, just a hunch based on listening to him the past couple of years and reading about the issue. In full disclosure, I have a friend who does have contacts within Bills organization that says the Bills are confident they'll resign him, so, again, I'm going against that intell as well.
papazoid Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 Putting aside the argument that Byrd may want to play for a team with better winning prospects than the Bills, there has been zero contention that he wants a premium to stay in Buffalo. That logic would work if the Bills offered him the same deal as Goldson got, and Byrd's camp turned that down. But all we can surmise is that Bills offered less than Goldosn's deal, and that's where the impasse ended. As for playing for a winner, each top echelon player has enough self confidence to think that he is the missing piece in a SuperBowl run. But in reality, they know their NFL shelf life is limited and they get only one shot at a big contract. How else would you explain Goldson walking away from a SB team to a top 5 draft pick team? That will be Byrd's decision too - take more money from a team that won't be in SB contention right away or take less to win a championship. The way Parker has positioned the negotiations, I'm guessing they're going to maximize Byrd's value. I don't think he signs for less than what Goldson got last year. what has been reported by Adam Benini is that the bills offered Top 4-5 money (that is vague and makes no mention of goldson or guaranteed money). all other stories on the subject are quoting Adam Benini. Adam BenigniVerified account@AdamBenigni Source: #Bills Byrd demanding to be highest paid safety in NFL. Told Bills were willing to offer top 4-5 money. #Impasse @wgrz
YoloinOhio Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 You could be right and with most players your logic is sound. I think in this particular case you will see Byrd sign with a contending team for a contract that we'll all scratch our heads and say "did the Bills offer him less than that ?". Again, just a hunch based on listening to him the past couple of years and reading about the issue. In full disclosure, I have a friend who does have contacts within Bills organization that says the Bills are confident they'll resign him, so, again, I'm going against that intell as well.
papazoid Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 You could be right and with most players your logic is sound. I think in this particular case you will see Byrd sign with a contending team for a contract that we'll all scratch our heads and say "did the Bills offer him less than that ?". Again, just a hunch based on listening to him the past couple of years and reading about the issue. In full disclosure, I have a friend who does have contacts within Bills organization that says the Bills are confident they'll resign him, so, again, I'm going against that intell as well. Eugene Parkers "MO" will be to only accept a contract that makes Byrd the Highest Paid Safety in the NFL ahead of picking a winning team. the bills will offer Byrd a contract. but not #1 money. Parker will turn it down. the bills will franchise tag him again. Byrd will not report to OTA's and mini camp. Parker and Byrd will do EXACTLY what they did last year. they will not flinch. if anyone flinches it will be the bills, by trading him.
Delete This Account Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) GG has aptly made most of the points i was going to make. wanted to weigh in on the fact that all this talk about Byrd not wanting to play in Buffalo is untrue. as for the comments he made postseason in regards to his critics, he was merely venting at those -- some on this board included -- who questioned his motives, injuries and desire to play for Bills. he did his job this season and is due to be the top safety entering free agency, and has once again earned the right to seek a top-dollar contract for his position when it comes to guaranteed money. whether or not the Bills are willing to pay that depends on the Bills and how they structure their payroll. to tag him again would mean having committed more than $15 million to a player over two years and still risk losing him. not sure if that's the ideal approach to managing a salary cap. jw Edited January 29, 2014 by john wawrow
GA BILLS FAN Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 Eugene Parkers "MO" will be to only accept a contract that makes Byrd the Highest Paid Safety in the NFL ahead of picking a winning team. the bills will offer Byrd a contract. but not #1 money. Parker will turn it down. the bills will franchise tag him again. Byrd will not report to OTA's and mini camp. Parker and Byrd will do EXACTLY what they did last year. they will not flinch. if anyone flinches it will be the bills, by trading him. Do you think the Bills could find a trading partner if they tag him with the intent on trading him ?
papazoid Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 Do you think the Bills could find a trading partner if they tag him with the intent on trading him ? absolutely......you just may not like what we get back.
GA BILLS FAN Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 absolutely......you just may not like what we get back. What round ? GG has aptly made most of the points i was going to make. wanted to weigh in on the fact that all this talk about Byrd not wanting to play in Buffalo is untrue. as for the comments he made postseason in regards to his critics, he was merely venting at those -- some on this board included -- who questioned his motives, injuries and desire to play for Bills. he did his job this season and is due to be the top safety entering free agency, and has once again earned the right to seek a top-dollar contract for his position when it comes to guaranteed money. whether or not the Bills are willing to pay that depends on the Bills and how they structure their payroll. to tag him again would mean having committed more than $15 million to a player over two years and still risk losing him. not sure if that's the ideal approach to managing a salary cap. jw There is a difference between not wanting to play in Buffalo and wanting to play for a winner, I'm not trying to parse my words or anything, but I believe Byrd wants to play for an organization that has a legitimate chance to win the Super Bowl. I don't think he hates Buffalo or the fans or anything along those lines or wants out of Buffalo. I think he sees this as an opportunity to not only get a big contract, but pick the best situation for himself with that objective in mind. As for his agent, they'll always push for the biggest contract, I get that, but in the end, they work for the player, not visa versa.
Dawgg Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) GG has aptly made most of the points i was going to make. wanted to weigh in on the fact that all this talk about Byrd not wanting to play in Buffalo is untrue. as for the comments he made postseason in regards to his critics, he was merely venting at those -- some on this board included -- who questioned his motives, injuries and desire to play for Bills. he did his job this season and is due to be the top safety entering free agency, and has once again earned the right to seek a top-dollar contract for his position when it comes to guaranteed money. whether or not the Bills are willing to pay that depends on the Bills and how they structure their payroll. to tag him again would mean having committed more than $15 million to a player over two years and still risk losing him. not sure if that's the ideal approach to managing a salary cap. John, I hear some version of the bolded sentence in news articles written by both you and Mark and I don't find the logic persuasive. If anything, tagging Byrd for a second time WOULD be an ideal way to manage a salary cap. A few reasons in support of this assertion. It would amount to a 2-year $15 million contract for arguably the top young safety in the NFL at (or approaching) his peak. At an average of $7.5M per season, that is incredible value. Applying the tag carries with it the benefit of delaying the massive financial investment of guaranteed funds required to secure his services long-term. Delaying a massive financial investment while securing his services for the 2014 season is not a bad thing. Applying the tag effectively removes the competition for his services, preventing the team from being outbid by a free-spending desperate team (see: Titans, Levitre). Applying the tag may motivate him and Parker to sit down and talk long-term contract with the Bills, knowing full-well that a season-ending injury could alter his free agent profile for the upcoming season. Finally, with the Bills having so much space under the cap, allocating $15M over a 2-year period to the top safety in the league is hardly a cap-prohibitive strategy. Edited January 29, 2014 by Dawgg
thebandit27 Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 Eugene Parkers "MO" will be to only accept a contract that makes Byrd the Highest Paid Safety in the NFL ahead of picking a winning team. the bills will offer Byrd a contract. but not #1 money. Parker will turn it down. the bills will franchise tag him again. Byrd will not report to OTA's and mini camp. Parker and Byrd will do EXACTLY what they did last year. they will not flinch. if anyone flinches it will be the bills, by trading him. There's nothing to suggest that this will be the case...they tagged Byrd last season because it was the smart thing to do...they got him at less than market-value. This year, it won't be less than market value, so if they want him long-term, they'll sign him. GG has aptly made most of the points i was going to make. wanted to weigh in on the fact that all this talk about Byrd not wanting to play in Buffalo is untrue. as for the comments he made postseason in regards to his critics, he was merely venting at those -- some on this board included -- who questioned his motives, injuries and desire to play for Bills. he did his job this season and is due to be the top safety entering free agency, and has once again earned the right to seek a top-dollar contract for his position when it comes to guaranteed money. whether or not the Bills are willing to pay that depends on the Bills and how they structure their payroll. to tag him again would mean having committed more than $15 million to a player over two years and still risk losing him. not sure if that's the ideal approach to managing a salary cap. jw Again, they tagged him last year because they got his services for below market. That's not the case this year, so tagging him is more of a last-ditch effort to keep a good player that wants more than you're willing to pay than it is a one-year value contract like last year. Cap-wise, there's probably better ways to manage it this year; cash-wise, it's not only shrewd, it's smart. What round ? There is a difference between not wanting to play in Buffalo and wanting to play for a winner, I'm not trying to parse my words or anything, but I believe Byrd wants to play for an organization that has a legitimate chance to win the Super Bowl. I don't think he hates Buffalo or the fans or anything along those lines or wants out of Buffalo. I think he sees this as an opportunity to not only get a big contract, but pick the best situation for himself with that objective in mind. As for his agent, they'll always push for the biggest contract, I get that, but in the end, they work for the player, not visa versa. Byrd wants to get paid; there's nothing more to it than that. If he gets paid in Buffalo, he'll be happy. If he gets paid somewhere else, he'll be happy too. All things being equal, I believe he'd rather get paid in Buffalo than someplace else.
Utah John Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 I think the OT loss to Atlanta in Toronto settled things for Byrd. The players realize this is an organization not committed to winning, instead just adding millions to Ralph's estate (and probably squirreled away in Jeff Littman's Swiss bank account). Players comments after that game were discouraged and fed up. The primary difference is Byrd will fly (haha) and the others are stuck. If the Bills end the Toronto series immediately, before trying to re-sign Byrd, they'll have a better chance of keeping him.
YoloinOhio Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 I think the OT loss to Atlanta in Toronto settled things for Byrd. The players realize this is an organization not committed to winning, instead just adding millions to Ralph's estate (and probably squirreled away in Jeff Littman's Swiss bank account). Players comments after that game were discouraged and fed up. The primary difference is Byrd will fly (haha) and the others are stuck. If the Bills end the Toronto series immediately, before trying to re-sign Byrd, they'll have a better chance of keeping him. Then he should have made a few more plays in that game. That loss was on the defense, as much as people want to lay it on SJ and Chandler.
thebandit27 Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 I think the OT loss to Atlanta in Toronto settled things for Byrd. The players realize this is an organization not committed to winning, instead just adding millions to Ralph's estate (and probably squirreled away in Jeff Littman's Swiss bank account). Players comments after that game were discouraged and fed up. The primary difference is Byrd will fly (haha) and the others are stuck. If the Bills end the Toronto series immediately, before trying to re-sign Byrd, they'll have a better chance of keeping him. Two totally different issues...if a player leaves because he doesn't like playing a home game in Toronto, fine. If they leave because they believe (incorrectly) that the organization isn't committed to winning, well, that's their issue. Ralph has always wanted to win; as I've said countless times on this board, it's been an issue of competence, not willingness to spend for a winner. History couldn't be more clear in this regard.
papazoid Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 GG has aptly made most of the points i was going to make. wanted to weigh in on the fact that all this talk about Byrd not wanting to play in Buffalo is untrue. as for the comments he made postseason in regards to his critics, he was merely venting at those -- some on this board included -- who questioned his motives, injuries and desire to play for Bills. he did his job this season and is due to be the top safety entering free agency, and has once again earned the right to seek a top-dollar contract for his position when it comes to guaranteed money. whether or not the Bills are willing to pay that depends on the Bills and how they structure their payroll. to tag him again would mean having committed more than $15 million to a player over two years and still risk losing him. not sure if that's the ideal approach to managing a salary cap. jw Byrd has earned the right to "ask" for #1 money for all kind of reasons. having said that he is NOT the best safety in the league and in my opinion not even Top 5 (for $9-10 million I would rather have Earl Thomas, Eric Berry, TJ Ward, Devin McCourty , a host of names for half that and a whole bunch of cornerbacks I could convert to free safety). Byrd is probably the slowest free safety in the entire league. he has bad feet and a degenerative hip injury. I saw Nigel Bradham pass byrd while both were chasing down the TB rb on that 80 yard scamper. as far as these one year franchise tags. again in my opinion , Parker is seeking a $9 mil/5 yr , $45 mil deal with $27 mil(3 years) Guaranteed. assuming that is true, the $15 mil in two years is less than $18 mil he would have earned if signed early last year. I think BOTH sides played their positions properly in this whole mess. and I think they are both going to do the exact same thing this year.
BigBuff423 Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 GG has aptly made most of the points i was going to make. wanted to weigh in on the fact that all this talk about Byrd not wanting to play in Buffalo is untrue. as for the comments he made postseason in regards to his critics, he was merely venting at those -- some on this board included -- who questioned his motives, injuries and desire to play for Bills. he did his job this season and is due to be the top safety entering free agency, and has once again earned the right to seek a top-dollar contract for his position when it comes to guaranteed money. whether or not the Bills are willing to pay that depends on the Bills and how they structure their payroll. to tag him again would mean having committed more than $15 million to a player over two years and still risk losing him. not sure if that's the ideal approach to managing a salary cap. jw That type of committment in terms of money, only bears true if the BILLS tag him and retain him. If they trade him, some, most, or all of that money gets passed on to the receiving team in the trade...I don't think the BILLS should let him walk, they Drafted him and gave him the opportunity to play in the NFL. He has played well and done a good to very good job at his position, but now it's time to move on. A successful team in the long-run does not commit that kind of money to a position that does not have such an impact. QBs and the line demand such money, as we've seen with other good teams, all other moving parts can be easily replaced. So, tag him and trade him.
Delete This Account Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 let me get this straight: Byrd was seeking somewhere in the neighborhood of $22 million in guaranteed money and was unable to secure that from the Bills so the Bills tagged him. should the Bills tag Byrd again this season, they will have committed more than $15 million in salary over two years to a player. yes, that's below market in averaging out to $7.5 million a year. here's a few questions, though: -- the Bills overpaid Mark Anderson and got very little out of him. wouldn't it have been better to commit Anderson's money to re-signing Byrd? -- broken down, the Bills spent $6.9 million on Byrd last season but only got 11 games out of him. and he was not present for a majority of the offseason. would anyone consider the Bills getting value for their money? -- should the Bills and Byrd go through the same scenario this offseason, would that be considered a good value? jw
BillsVet Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 If teams don't allow their all-pros to leave, then how did we get Mario Williams? Looking at the 2013 NFL AP All-Pro Team, only 9 of the 54 players were acquired via trade or in UFA. Only 3 of those players play the in-demand positions of QB, DE, OT, WR, or CB: P. Manning, Mario, and Jason Peters. Manning's case was exceptional, Mario had been replaced, and Peters, well, I'm not going there. They have a lot of players up next year. So that would really be the only excuse. But I am with you, he is important, and I think important enough to pay him, even if they over pay. They wasted a lot of money on QBs that never even played for us, and that wasted money could have been used to help retain Byrd. Who is absolutely essential to retain after 2014? Spiller is a situational player, Dareus is an under-motivated DL that I think is replaceable and would save the team money. Aside from that, I don't see Aaron Williams commanding a significant extension. They could try to re-sign Glenn I suppose and lock him up long term, but Buffalo doesn't typically get ahead of the game. Jerry Hughes is a one year wonder, but could have another good season. Outside of those guys I'm not sure and if they can't re-sign their best DB because they think there are others who'd need contracts, it's a failure on the team's part to adapt their cap to suit an improving team.
GA BILLS FAN Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 (edited) let me get this straight: Byrd was seeking somewhere in the neighborhood of $22 million in guaranteed money and was unable to secure that from the Bills so the Bills tagged him. should the Bills tag Byrd again this season, they will have committed more than $15 million in salary over two years to a player. yes, that's below market in averaging out to $7.5 million a year. here's a few questions, though: -- the Bills overpaid Mark Anderson and got very little out of him. wouldn't it have been better to commit Anderson's money to re-signing Byrd? -- broken down, the Bills spent $6.9 million on Byrd last season but only got 11 games out of him. and he was not present for a majority of the offseason. would anyone consider the Bills getting value for their money? -- should the Bills and Byrd go through the same scenario this offseason, would that be considered a good value? jw I agree with you on the tag scenario -- if Bills repeat what they did last year, they are fools. Byrd / Parker would do exactly as you suggest and worse. Bills barely got their value last year. If Byrd does get tagged, it should be to facilitate a trade that the Bills know is out there. To me there are 3 choices, (1) tag/trade (2) sign or (3) don't sign and let Byrd walk. Edited January 29, 2014 by TXBILLSFAN
papazoid Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 let me get this straight: Byrd was seeking somewhere in the neighborhood of $22 million in guaranteed money and was unable to secure that from the Bills so the Bills tagged him. should the Bills tag Byrd again this season, they will have committed more than $15 million in salary over two years to a player. yes, that's below market in averaging out to $7.5 million a year. here's a few questions, though: -- the Bills overpaid Mark Anderson and got very little out of him. wouldn't it have been better to commit Anderson's money to re-signing Byrd? -- broken down, the Bills spent $6.9 million on Byrd last season but only got 11 games out of him. and he was not present for a majority of the offseason. would anyone consider the Bills getting value for their money? -- should the Bills and Byrd go through the same scenario this offseason, would that be considered a good value? jw YES, money would have been better spent on Byrd instead of Anderson. NO, on the value question. (and this is the Parker strategy than makes Byrd a Tyrd. YES, the bills should stick to their guns and offer what they think he deserves, irregardless if Tyrd waits again until 100% healthy and thereby putting the bills in a position to get less value. Byrd should say, HELL NO i'm not happy about not signing a long term deal. but $6.9 and $8.3 mil is a heck of a lot of money and i'm going to go out and earn it.
thebandit27 Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 let me get this straight: Byrd was seeking somewhere in the neighborhood of $22 million in guaranteed money and was unable to secure that from the Bills so the Bills tagged him. should the Bills tag Byrd again this season, they will have committed more than $15 million in salary over two years to a player. yes, that's below market in averaging out to $7.5 million a year. You're neglecting the fact that, had the Bills committed $20M+ in guaranteed money to Byrd, they're still on the hook for base salary and incentives, so there's no accounting for what they "might" have spent in actual cash with a new deal. Guaranteed or not, they spent below market value on Byrd last year. -- the Bills overpaid Mark Anderson and got very little out of him. wouldn't it have been better to commit Anderson's money to re-signing Byrd? That's totally unrelated to Byrd. Also, they kept Byrd last season--for close to the amount of money they saved by cutting Anderson. -- broken down, the Bills spent $6.9 million on Byrd last season but only got 11 games out of him. and he was not present for a majority of the offseason. would anyone consider the Bills getting value for their money? I'll answer that with another question: If he played 11 games after getting the $20M+ in guarantees, is that better value? -- should the Bills and Byrd go through the same scenario this offseason, would that be considered a good value? "Good value" is subjective in this case, as his franchise tender of ~$8.3M is close to what he'd get on a per-year-average basis on the open market. It's certainly not below market like last year. Would I consider it good value? Probably not. Would I rather they tag him for that amount than lose him for no compensation? Absolutely.
Recommended Posts